Skip to comments.FL lawyer says Giuliani, Romney, McCain wrong on Schiavo case
Posted on 05/28/2007 9:33:12 AM PDT by wagglebee
The Christian attorney who fought to keep Terry Schiavo alive says the three leading GOP presidential candidates don't understand the important disability issues involved in the widely publicized 2005 case.
During a recent Republican presidential debate in California, the candidates were asked whether Congress was right to intervene in the Terry Schiavo case by attempting to prevent the state of Florida from removing the disabled woman's feeding tube. The answers varied.
Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, said he thought it "was a mistake" for Congress to get involved and the matter should have been left at the state level. Senator John McCain said Congress "probably acted too hastily." And former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani called the case a "family dispute."
David Gibbs III of the Christian Law Association says the United States gives greater due process to convicted murderers than to innocent disabled people. The former attorney for Schiavo's parents argues that Congress did the right thing when it intervened to provide her those rights.
"Many of the candidates are following the political wind, if you will, instead of showing leadership and saying, 'You know what? That was good public policy back then. We need to stand up for the disabled. We need to stand up for the senior citizens,'" Gibbs says. "We need to have that compassion for vulnerable people as opposed to taking the mindset that those people that just don't matter," he notes.
It is disingenuous, the Christian attorney contends, for candidates to claim they are pro-life but not be willing to grant due process rights to the disabled. "If you're pro-life, you have to be pro-life at every step," he says.
"Please understand: our founding fathers understood that you don't have any liberty, our Constitution doesn't matter, if you don't protect the innocent life of the citizens," Gibbs explains. "That's why they talked about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- your free speech, your freedom of religion, your right to own a gun or [receive] due process of law," he says. "If the government can kill you, you have no true liberty."
When Rudy Giuliani visited Florida he initially said he was in favor of assisting Terry Schiavo but later backpedaled from those comments, Gibbs points out. And in the recent GOP presidential debate, he says, only Kansas Senator Sam Brownback and Congressman Duncan Hunter of California got the issue right when they were asked about the Schiavo case.
I did. They thought you were way over the top.
It is obvious you're still molesting a goat.
That's OK, he'll change his mind again :-)
>> I was under the impression that bulimia was the basis for a malpractice suit against Terri Schiavo's doctors, not that it was an alibi offered to the police as you are implying?
Thank you for mentioning that. The malpractice suit was fraudulent. Michael knew Terri did not have bulimia and said so under oath. This is the guy you're defending -- a fraud in the malpractice suits and a fraud again in misusing Terri's trust fund. Oh, excuse me, you're not defending him, you're just interested in medical facts, and it's sheer coincidence that you back Michael 100% of the time.
Malpractice suits are a plague to the medical profession. Your guy is a serial malpractice lawsuit abuser. He had no basis for those suits, but you, a doctor, still champion his claims come hell or high water. Dr. Prawer, one of Michael's blameless victims, might wish a few words with you.
Sure. Definition 2 is of strong interest in psychiatry and medicine, btw.
1 a : the act or process of orienting or of being oriented b : the state of being oriented; broadly : ARRANGEMENT, ALIGNMENT
2 a : a usually general or lasting direction of thought, inclination, or interest b : a person's self-identification as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. >"sexual orientation"
3 : change of position by organs, organelles, or organisms in response to external stimulus
She wasn't permitted to testify. That's because Greer and Felos couldn't afford to let her tell her story. It was too damning to their client.
No, I didn't. But I'll bet everybody's thinking it :-)
With respect to the eventual outcome, yes. But, depriving someone of food and water as opposed to shooting them in the head is much more grevious to the individual IMO. It takes a much longer time to die, and is probably much more painful as well.
But your words were "history of head trauma." You, a doctor, gave out false medical information! You added one word that did not belong, and it gave a totally false picture of the patient! Why, sir, a doctor has far greater responsibility than a nurse in a nursing home. You must be more meticulous than any nurse in your research and reports. When you make false reports such as this "head trauma" blunder, lives are endangered by your carelessness! You are either a complete incompetent or fabricating.
May I presume you, too, were just being sarcastic in saying those silly things about Carla Iyer?
If God decides to bring you home you will not have an opportunity to "swerve". This is a serious question?
Visitors are not here to ask serious questions. THEY think they are here to sow doubt and confusion. WE think they are side-show performers in that carnival that's parked out by the truck stop. For fifty cents you can watch the geek bite the head off a chicken.
When you were up against the OJ look-alike defense team, I expected some brilliant defense of a murder, but now it is looking more and more like second stringers, cut from that elite bunch early on. And now one of their small team has bit the dust.
So it seems. I wished that one well and it turned around and bit my ankle, like an angry chihuahua.
OJ's defense lawyers had exactly the same problem(s). 1) OJ did it. 2) Calculated odds that OJ did it were even more astronomical than the calculated odds that Michael did it.
OJ's lawyers solved it by putting someone else on trial (Mark Fuhrman). Here, Michael's lawyers are busy putting Carla Iyer on trial for finding the empty insulin bottle in the trash. Too bad for them -- this jury isn't buying it.
Look at the dozen or so definitions you and kosokey have referenced that refer to person, place and time. In reality, what nurses are taught is to refer in chart notation on orientation as "oriented X 1, 2, or 3." You should have pointed out to people in this thread that this would be the normal thought and reference of any trained nurse, with the number referring to "self, place, and time." Surely you know that patients may be "oriented" in any combination of these parameters. In the interests of medical accuracy, you should have said so. You know perfectly well a nurse such as Iyer may very well refer to a patient as being "oriented" and mean a simple "oriented X 1." Certainly her observations would support that assessment. Keep in mind also, she was writing to be understood by a general reader, not writing in a chart or addressing a medical audience. There is no call to jump all over her for using one word -- a word easily understood by a lay audience and accurate for her first-hand experience.
Ping to #1664, retMD, erton1 and kozokey, which I believe is meant more for you than for me.
Stick around Tajitaw, the trolls will try every trick in the book. Good post btw.
Well, your star witness, the paid to lie Dr. Cranford hired by Geroge Felos, was grossly mistaken in the past. Notice that that doesn't end with a question mark.
According to this Post, you are wrong. It never occurred to me, but a search on google will validate the poster. Something you want to add?
The poster, like Michael Schiavo, was probably stalking behind the scenes. I got a freepmail from it, but I just deleted it before I read it.
I see that another one of the deathbots has departed.
Correction: Two more!
An according to the autopsy report, they can't talk anymore either.
Well, by their own standards, their euthanization was long overdue.
They really were hurting Michael's cause. Bless them for that.
They should go join up with the WAckos, most of them cheered Terri’s murder.
For their sake, I hope they will reconsider that strongly.
And so calm returns to the peaceful kingdom. The people smile and give thinks to St. Fu, patron saint of hey, let's have a little peace and quiet around here.
Don’t worry, more will come to fill their places, they’re like a virus.
They're like batting practice in slow-pitch league.
The deathbots are 100% invested in the idea that Michael could not have had any responsibility in Terri’s injuries. Because that belief is necessary for them to be able to justify Michael’s unlawful decision to kill Terri.
Wives, too bad if you don't like it, it's now the law. So just shut up about it and be a good little chattel property.
At least they bounce the thread to the top. :)
“The deathbots are 100% invested in the idea that Michael could not have had any responsibility in Terris injuries. Because that belief is necessary for them to be able to justify Michaels unlawful decision to kill Terri.”
Common sense should tell a person that if a man sues for malpractice, and gets the $$ because he SAYS he will take care of his wife for the rest of her life, and AFTER he gets the $$ “remembers” that she did not want to live like that, the man does not have his wife’s best interests at heart, to say the least.
Did you notice any other points where retMD’s medical logic was a little one-sided? I think the other side deserves to be heard. One that bugged me is that he kept insisting that Dr. Walker, the bone scan radiologist, framed his findings according to a few erroneous words on the routing slip. So everything Dr. Walker saw was, what, an illusion? Sheesh. That a terrible insult to Dr. Walker. I thought even first year med students were taught to focus on the normal in order to see the abnormal.
While I’m on the subject, Dr. Thogmartin said that the bone scan’s notation of “closed head injury” was clearly wrong, unless it referred to the anoxic insult itself. But Dr. Thogmartin wasn’t there in 1991. He is reconstructing, probably with very little paper evidence. CHI may not have been erroneous at all, contemporaneously seen. It’s hard to see how Terri could have had a severe whiplash injury to her neck without the possibility of a closed head injury. Does that make sense?
>> it takes a fair amount of blunt force to cause multiple bilateral rib fractures.
It sure does. Poor Terri!
>> A car accident would do that, struggle on the floor would not.
Not a "struggle on the floor." Hitting the floor hard is what would do it. We know that this couldn't be from her just keeling over because that wouldn't be enough force and the head would show external injury. She had some "help" smashing into the floor.
>> Posterior rib fractures are very suggestive of abuse in infants and children. As I've mentioned several times, you can't automatically assume what holds in children is valid in adults.
Such injuries ARE suggestive of abuse in adults, though it's not "automatic" as it is in children.
Would you be using logic to suggest that Michael committed fraud in the malpractice suits? Then he committed fraud again to keep the money? That his sobby scene in the trial where he promised to spend the rest of his life taking care of Terri was -- er -- terrible soap opera and a big lie?
Any sensible person would agree.
Hearty welcome to our Terri threads! Thanks for your posts and hope to see lots more. I am almost sorry the trolls left the building before you got a chance to confront them. More will come, though and I hope you are in the neighborhood when they do. They just can’t help themselves.
You were right about this, bjs1779. I understand there are pre- or post-mortem tests so sophisticated they can detect signs of strangulation in soft tissues, even 14 years later. Dr. Thogmartin blundered by releasing the body for cremation in a case "of criminal importance." The body may well have contained clues.
Remember when he said it was a "classic case of sickle cell trait" AFTER the video of Martin Anderson was released? I don't think there is much doubt that he would've allowed his body to cremated, video or no video. The list of irregularities is rather long.
Basically, Thogmartin did the same thing, with no evidence or no evidence to support his conclusion either. Maybe he just took Gary Fox's word for it : )
with (little) evidence or no evidence
He's a county medical officer. This is not the big leagues in medicine. Even so, his call on Martin Anderson was beyond the pale.
We watched the kid -- 14 years old -- getting pounded by half a dozen trained deputies, in that video. It was sickening. And then to have the coroner cover it up as a "sickle cell" problem was a crime.
I am still trying to trust that Thogmartin was at least trying to play straight with Terri's autopsy, but it is getting difficult.
I heard he hired Dr. Nelson. You know the guy who missed a strangulation case.
I guess that deserves more than one reply. I don't think they found anything. You got a discredited patho telling us she was blind and couldn't eat and he weighed her brain. Bragging about her deficiency's as I recall at the news conference.
None of that, even if true, does not justify murder. They also said that they had no way of knowing if she was PVS. Yet, the public statement was "she was blind, she could not see". Thank you very much Dr. Thogmartin.
Nelson was trying to portray her as PVS, -- and every media serpent in the country picked up on that, -- but of course they cannot determine PVS post-mortem. He was grandstanding to compare Terri's dehydrated brain weight with Quinlan's. That's utterly unprofessional. Terri was far more responsive than Quinlan and it wasn't her fault that her brain was injured in the first place. Blame that on her no-good killer.
Thogmartin did the neck and said she couldn't swallow safely. He meant what doctors mean by that, that the patient might aspirate -- get food down the wrong tube and into her lungs. That is indeed dangerous -- but executing her because she can't swallow safely is a lot more dangerous!
Nelson again, and wrong. The right-to-kill crew jumped on that one with delight. They are conspiracy theorists who believe the videos were faked. Here was their "proof." Just like they heard it on the Mother Ship.
I wonder how the video faking crew got Michael's chosen neurologist, Dr. Cranford, to tell Terri that she could see.